Thursday, March 12, 2015

Goodbye Helter Skelter Chapters Fifteen and Sixteen

While it is no secret that Patty is pro drug theory, Stimson does not entirely agree with her when discussing the Tate LaBianca Murders. We have seen before that he believes that bad synthetic drugs manufactured by Gary were the reason for the Hinman Murder, Tate and LaBianca were a result of favors owed to Charlie and Bobby Beausoleil. The murders were, Stimson says, the killers' own idea about how to show their devotion to Charlie and to get Bobby out of jail. Let's look a little closer, shall we?

Chapter Fifteen: "The Real Motive."

Stimson begins by listing the possible motives for Tate LaBianca and discounting them all in turn. Cielo was not chosen in order to send a message to Terry Melcher, but rather because Tex was familiar with those surroundings. Charlie Manson does not have an uncontrollable blood lust: his songs were not full of death, and he did not choose Death Valley because of its name as Bugliosi has contended. Frykoswki burning the residents of Spahn over drugs was an early line of investigation by the LAPD that went nowhere.

The real motive, Stimson writes, was to get Bobby out of jail. He quotes many of the family members as having said this time and time again: if not at first, then later at parole hearings, in interviews and in their books. Stimson pulls quotes from Tex, Susan, Pat, Leslie, Gypsy and Sandy to illustrate his point. He quotes Charlie as having said that after he cut Hinman's ear he was not willing to commit any more violence, telling the others that "you're all putting me back in the penitentiary." When they asked him how to get Bobby out of jail, he said that he didn't know, but reminded them that they "owed him." He told Tex to "pay (Beausoleil) what you owe me" but says he did not specifically direct him to commit the additional murders.

Stimson says that the copycat motive was obviously not a good idea. The police already had Bobby's fingerprints at the scene and he was arrested in the dead man's car with the murder weapon. Nevertheless, Stimson claims it is the true motive with two other "contributing factors:" the historical context of the time, and the use of speed by Tex and Susan for several days before the murders.The fact that Charlie is very anti speed, Stimson contends, shows that the Family members absolutely did not do everything that Charlie told them to do or not do. Furthermore, since speed causes aggression, homicidal tendencies, paranoia, hallucinations, psychosis and irrationality it makes bad ideas seem like good ones. Stimson quotes Tex as saying of the murders that "it was as though Charlie's instructions were tape recorded in my mind and being played back, step by step, as I needed them," and chalks this up to auditory hallucinations because Charlie supposedly never told Tex what to do that night. Bugliosi discounts the importance of speed in the murders. He ignores most of the drug use at Spahn except for the use of LSD which he says Charlie used to brainwash his followers; this is because the DA did not want drug use mitigating his version of the murders.

Chapter Sixteen: "Charles Manson and the Law."

This is an extremely long chapter and in places gets very technical concerning California law. Patty had a rough time of it so if she misses anything significant she sincerely hopes that George will chime in. The two stated purposes of this chapter are to find interpretations whereby Charlie could be found not guilty of first degree murder and to explore his claim that he was denied his sixth amendment right to defend himself pro per. In order to do this, Stimson asks that we assume that the previous analysis in his book is correct. He begins by listing four essential elements that must be proven to obtain a first degree murder conviction: premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice. In addition, a first degree murder conviction can be obtained if the murder was part of an attempt to commit arson, rape, robbery, mayhem or as a lewd act against a child. Stimson says that in his prior analysis, none of this applies. Even if cutting Gary's ear can be considered mayhem, there is an exception if it was committed in self defense, and Charlie has stated that he did it in order to disarm Gary, who had a gun. Further, Rosemary's stolen wallet is irrelevant to the prosecution's case because "no charges were ever filed." Regarding intent: if we assume as Stimson asks us to that Helter Skelter was not the true motive, then there can be no intent. Tex remembers Pat and Leslie asking, "did he say to kill them?" because they did not receive any instructions from Charlie.

Can Charlie be considered guilty of a conspiracy with respect to Tate La Bianca? Stimson again lays out the essential legal elements: agreement, two or more persons involved, specific intent, unlawful object or means and an overt act. Stimson notes that Charlie specifically said that he wasn't entering into any agreements with the others because he had already committed two illegal acts (Lotsapoppa and Hinman) and did not want to go back to prison. Tex did say that Charlie specifically told him to kill, but this evidence was presented after the Tate LaBianca trial, it is inadmissible without corroboration and was likely fabricated or hallucinated because he had been using speed for days beforehand. In the Hinman Shea trial, Bruce testified that Charlie said that they were going to kill Shorty beforehand, but again it is an uncorrobrated assertion and therefore inadmissible. In that trial, Stimson says that the case against Charlie was as weak at the case against some of the others involved who were never charged.

Manson, Stimson says, had no defense in the Tate La Bianca trial: his defense rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence, while the prosecution took nine months to present their case. Charlie says that he was used by the Bug, who by 1970 had tried 105 felony jury trials and lost only one. When Bugliosi says that "the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done," the author and Charlie say that he was full of shit. Charlie was legally entitled to a trial within 60 days of arraignment. Even though he stated that he was ready to begin, it took five months until jury selection began.

It was Judge Keene (who was later replaced by Older) who revoked Charlie's right to pro per because of unorthodox requests he made of the court. Later, Bugliosi stated that the DA was willing to let Charlie defend himself but Judge Older again denied it. Furthermore, Older denied Charlie's request to replace his lawyer, Ronald Hughes, with Irving Kanarek because he disliked Kanarek's courtroom style. To let Kanarek represent Charlie, Older said, would be a "miscarriage of justice." However, Older never expressed any concern at all that Hughes had never tried a case before. Moreover, Stephen Kay brushed off this constitutional question as a mere "sticking point" with no elaboration. Countless habeas corpus appeals have been filed since the trial protesting Charlie's imprisonment but all have been given a rubber stamp denial. If Charlie is so obviously guilty, Stimson wonders, then why are they so afraid to let him back into court?

Linda Kasabian, the DA's star witness, was unshakeable and very believable to the jury. Stimson brings Linda's credibility into question because she stole money from Charles Melton on Topanga and from her father in Florida. Additionally, Stimson says that Linda lied to a social worker about leaving California before the murders happened. Sandra Good calls her "experienced:" she was loose, she got high a lot, she liked to creepy crawl. Furthermore, she abandoned her daughter Tanya. Another witness, Danny DeCarlo, is not credible to Stimson because he testified that he was smashed most of the time and because he testified in exchange for not being prosecuted over having Shorty Shea's weapons. Greg Jakobson was an important witness, but Stimson points out that he said "I don't know if he wanted (Helter Skelter)...whether he intended it to happen or wanted it to happen, I don't know." Of Little Paul, Stimson reminds us that Paul said "someone was going to show (black people) how to start Helter Skelter" but could not clarify who that someone was supposed to be.

Of the Jury, Stimson writes that some of their conclusions "were not necessarily logical" because they accepted Linda's uncorroborated evidence, evidence that Charlie was once at Cielo as proof of his involvement, and assumption that Charlie's leadership meant that he ordered the murders. Furthermore he states that they did not follow instructions #2, #36 and #52 which require that the circumstances of the crime must be reconciled two ways and that a more reasonable explanation must not exist than Helter Skelter. Here, Stimson says, the copycat motive is far more reasonable.

The copycat motive was brought up during the penalty phase, but not during the trial itself because Charlie was not allowed to defend himself. Stimson finds it ironic that defendants Colin Ferguson and Ted Kaczinski were given this right whereas Charlie was not. Had he been able to defend himself, Stimson feels that he could have effectively countered and discredited Linda, Paul, Danny and many others who testified against him. Charlie's defense would have been based on his inability to lie and the position that he could not have had maliced aforethought because he lives in the NOW. He would never have gotten others to do what he would not do for himself. And, Stimson says, he was not the leader of the group. He was never in charge at Spahn's Ranch: George was.

Stimson wraps up the chapter with a long quote by Charlie demonstrating how he feels he was bought and sold by the media and by people who were trying to get book deals. He feels that even the gag orders were a set up so that they could be broken to gain more publicity and to put things into the public record. "I believed that I had rights...I didn't know that all that was bought and sold...that's the reason I didn't plead guilty and get diminished capacity. Had I pled guilty, I'd have been out in 18 months."

Also: "Furthermore he states that they did not follow instructions #2, #36 and #52 which require that the circumstances of the crime must be reconciled two ways and that a more reasonable explanation must not exist than Helter Skelter."

No, those rules state that IF the circumstances of a crime can re reconciled two ways the jury is required to accept the more reasonable reconciliation, which in this case is the "brother" motive instead of the HS motive.

Those rules also state that if the circumstances of a crime can be explained two ways and one of the ways points towards a defendant's innocence, the jury is required to accept the explanation that points towards innocence.

IF the motive for the Hinman case was robbery OR if the others simply went to Hinman's to borrow money and the issue turned to "give us the money or we will harm YOU," it became robbery - wherein Hinman died at the hands of the others. Thus, ALL involved are guilty of MURDER. Their is NO defense for being involved in murdering a "robbery victim" in HIS home - EXCEPT, if the home is set-up with a trap, like a bomb, to KILL any intruder and then it gets really legally complicated.

BUT then, you have a case like Bernard Crow threatening to do those at the Spahn Ranch HARM, if HE is not given money "back." Under certain circumstances, Charlie, as head of the household, MAY have had just cause to go to Crow's home to discuss the issue. I suspect that is why Charlie was NEVER prosecuted for shooting Crow.

INTERESTING, all the Manson Family Cases involved very UN-ordinary legal issues, with the TLB murder case being the most complicated. AND thus unless Manson and the other defendants "participate" in a full-blown legitimate TRIAL, where Manson is allowed to defend HIMSELF, we may never realize the TRUTH. BUT the way it stands now, a hundred or so years from NOW, we could end up with a NEW and improved Messiah.

That's why, as a filmmaker, I love "Helter Skelter." Think of it this way: first comes the "old" testament and then decades later comes the "NEW."

YOU think I'm crazy ? Two thousand years ago - the Romans "allowed" Jesus to DEFEND himself in Court. He obviously lost in Court, BUT it ain't over until the REBEL becomes the HERO.

So George, WHY do you think Manson has NOT spent HIS time in prison studying the law, so HE could get HIS appeal granted to defend himself in a NEW trial ???????????????

Robert, I don't have any time to do anything here other than address Patty's inadvertent misrepresentations or misinterpretations of my book. I can't address every single question that people might have about the case. That is what I do in my book. And all of your concerns are addressed in the book. If you want to read the book (not a summary/review) and ask questions, that's one thing. But if you don't want to buy and read the book because you think I'm a jerk or because -- God forbid! -- I might get my hands on a few of your dollars, then don't buy and read the book. But please don't ask me questions about it if you haven't read it.

Mr. Stimson Sir I have a question. I have wanted to ask this of someone in your situation for some time. It will sound like an insulting question, and maybe it is. But I really dont desire to insult you, just to understand something that has puzzled me from my earliest times on these blogs;

Taking TLB completely out of the equation, and assuming that Charlie had nothing to do with those two nights..

We still have a grown man who spent his entire life stealing from, and harming others. He raped and beat young women. He stole. he shot someone. He took advantage of almost everyone who ever did anything nice for him. I am in the process of trying to write a post figuring out how young people back then could have been so stupid to get caught up with a guy like that? Those incarcerated have been asking themselves that for years.

My honest question for you is:

with the benefit of knowing his history and the things he had done- with all of the people in this planet to befriend- why Charles Manson?

By the way- I do admire the loyalty and conviction you show to your friend. I have questions about your view of the TLB crimes, but I have questions with every view I have ever heard. Even my own

I don't think anyone is trying to make a saint out of Charlie. The book is to dispel the myth of Helter Skelter and that he masterminded the crimes. People often are one sided and see only the bad. Charlie may be a criminal, but he's also a musician, philosopher and there is plenty of testimony of good sides to his personality. Had he was signed to a major record deal, his female "follwers" would be called groupies. His ego shattered, brainwashing music would be called a positive spiritual message. His criminality and drug use would be dismissed as good ol' rock n roll decadence. Sure he might have slapped a few women around. But rap stars who dedicated entire songs to such behavior got standing ovations and grammies. If you read into the case deeper, you'll see in the case of Mary Brunner, she dished out some punches to him too. Led Zeppelin beat and sodomized a girl with a dead fish. But hey, they're socially accepted heroes...so that's OK. Hendrix and everyone else had a harem of females behind them. THose were groupies, but when it comes to Charlie? CULT MEMBERS! oooo.

The media and DA created a smoke screen you people still have in front of your faces.

Merrick and I are the only ones who EVER gave Charles Manson and HIS Family, including Sandra Good - who revealed the "Copycat Motive" in 1970 - a LOUD voice in the World Wide International Media. AND you don't have time to tell ME what YOU "think" about Charles Manson NOT taking the time in prison to educate himself in the "LAW." - so HE could actually represent HIMSELF competently in a Court of Law. ????

I got the book and will read it but any argument that CM was refused his pro per rights are specious. I personally think the trial was a fraud and there was no chance for CM from the beginning, but when he was pro per he behaved completely unprofessionally so what happened was a direct result of his actions. Claiming otherwise is a non starter

There is some ( maybe much) truth to what you say, and some of the comparisons you make...

But my question is not if Charlie is worse than anyone else. ( although to me you do minimize the differences in dangerousness of behavior between Charlie and you other examples you gave)

my question is why go out of your way to befriend someone who you know ahead of time spent his life hurting others and whom you know - in advance- is a locked away criminal?

what is it about a person who ( fairly or not) is considered the Face of Evil, and is locked away forever that is so attractive to some that they go to such extraordinary lengths to get involved in their life personally??

If I am around anyone who " slaps a women around once in awhile" I never hang around them again- let along go out of my way to start a new friendship with someone I already know does that.

Is it upbringing, options, something dark down deep inside,

or...

Is Charlie just that bitching? lol

I mean even if that were the case- you had to make a conscious decision before you get the chance to find that out- that you want to find that out...

Straying a bit...but I'd be curious to find out if anybody thinks Charlie genuinely cared for anyone at Spahn, as a friend or lover?He was a generation away from his 'co-defendents' (not the most appropriate time to use that term perhaps!). He was married...did he lose interest in life after Rose went on her way? Was he too just as lost and so inevitably stumbled across this convenient scene??

Much has been said about how Charlie "used" these impressionable young people but it is clear to Patty that his love and admiration for some, like Sandy and Lynn, was enduring. It must be difficult to form relationships with people when even your own mother was sorry you were born. It probably gets to be easy to use people for what you can get from them when youve lived the life that he has. He has seen many do the same to him...use them for what they can get.

Charlie helped George pay his taxes. Helped the old blind man get his trucks running and gave him a Studebaker. He made sure the girls took good care of him. Charlie nursed and took care of kittens. If he didn't show genuine love, why would they stick around?

Charlie helped George pay his taxes. Helped the old blind man get his trucks running and gave him a Studebaker. He made sure the girls took good care of him. Charlie nursed and took care of kittens. If he didn't show genuine love, why would they stick around?----------------------------I've always been under the impression that Charlie paid the property taxes for George so George wouldn't have his property seized by the county and make Charlie homeless.....

Robert Hendrickson said ..."Their is NO defense for being involved in murdering a "robbery victim" in HIS home..." I read that particular bit and wondered if initially I had my wires crossed - a group of people break into someone's home, forcibly detains them, the resident then has his ear sliced and the action is justified as "self defense" because the person who lived there was prepared to use a gun to try and ultimately deter the people holding him captive in his own home? Thank you for highlighting that, Mr.H.

And thank you Patty for diarising your observations - and Mr. Stimson for addressing the various questions/clarifications, etc., am definitely going to get a copy of the book as it sounds absolutely intriguing.

Robert H, in both of your documentaries there is a scene with a balding guy with dark hair and his mustache connected to his sideburns playing with Mary Brunner's hand. I've been told before that this guy is TJ but I don't think he is. Who is this guy?

Trouble is - I'm the ONE who does NOT have time to even READ a so-called BOOK, especially if it doesn't even mention a "The Nation of Islam" and the "Zebra" murders connection (RE: YOUR new post)

Back when Squeaky attempted to assassinate Ford, Sandy called me on the phone and demanded I send photos of the Family to Charlie in prison so HE could have something to spoon over. She even threatened, that IF I didn't, Charlie might put the infamous "death curse" on me. I responded: "Tell Charlie to go fuck himself." AND I guess this Johnny come lately is trying to carry the torch. So what is ALL this mumbo jumbo ( Goodbye HS) about IF nobody even has a clue as to WHY Charles Manson will NOT even attempt to FREE himself from prison.

Here, I'll make MY question multiple choice and let EVERYONE ponder a very important clue - IF they really give-a-shit about a "motive."

a) Manson is TOO busy performing brain surgery in prison.b) Manson is TOO busy saving the world from evil doers who are so busy trying to make a living that they don't even have time to separate THEIR plastic bottles and tin cans from the left over spaggetti. THUS, they are intentionally polluting the earth.c) Manson would be revealed as still INCOMPETENT to represent himself in a court of law, even if HE read every LAW book ever published. AND thus the entire Manson Mystique would flow down the drain, just like EVERYONE'S crap.

For those who want to actually LEARN something about this case: Right on Matt's link here, you can find - 3/14/15 "one of four "zebra killers" found dead in his cell at San Quentin - plus even more.

Hi Robert. I was about 12 years old when the Zebra murders were happening. I delivered the SF Examiner every afternoon and read about them every time they were in the paper. Interesting connection.....

my respect for Mr. H. and his take on the case have always been high. He, ES & of course VB were closest to the events & closest to the players closest to the events. I view all these folks that endeared themselves to CM & family later on to be not a lot more than fans. This last post from Robert has given me a new level of respect for him as it has finally become clear to me that he really gets it.Recent posts from the COL have also won me over to his humanity. Not that he would give two shits.Patty, Thank you so much for giving your book review & thank you Matt & team for having both Mr. S & Mr. H posting on the blog. It is truly some of the most thought provoking conversation I have seen since I started following the blogs.

my respect for Mr. H. and his take on the case have always been high. He, ES & of course VB were closest to the events & closest to the players closest to the events. I view all these folks that endeared themselves to CM & family later on to be not a lot more than fans. This last post from Robert has given me a new level of respect for him as it has finally become clear to me that he really gets it.Recent posts from the COL have also won me over to his humanity. Not that he would give two shits.Patty, Thank you so much for giving your book review & thank you Matt & team for having both Mr. S & Mr. H posting on the blog. It is truly some of the most thought provoking conversation I have seen since I started following the blogs.

I have vehemently defended red blue gold etc all since I was fortunately lucky enough Lyn wrote and called me from Marianna and sent me the newspaper article about blue and lake Champlain I'm no best friends to anyside Robert ask why Manson didn't study law I've wonder why his fiancee hasn't red and blue are held in high regard and I think this goes without saying to ban Robert you have let the world see Charlie vest intact and more

I was interested to read that the Waverly Drive murders were not robberies (ie could be proescuted as felony murders). The Kay quote from LVH 1993 parole hearing makes it all the more so.

Quite how Kay has the audacity to make such a statement in 1993 when as far as I am aware after the 1977 LVH hung jury, her charge was altered to robbery murder for the 1978 trial. (He was the prosecutor both times).

The strategy behind this was that felony murder has no mitigating circumstances for a claim of diminished responsiblity. The 1977 jury could not decide on murder or manslaughter. The 1978 jury could not hear about diminished responsibilty because the accused went there to commit a felony (and people got killed).

Another point: in the History channel special Kasabian recalls (at Cielo Drive) Watson telling her to get Parent's wallet. She states she got into the car and did so. So there is a felony robbery with murder charge right there. This never came up during the trial.

Kasabian also mentions taking a white speed tablet before embarking on the journey. So that makes at least three of the killers under the influence of speed.

I have yet to finish the legal chapter. My understanding is that there was also a conspiracy charge with Hinman. I would like to see the book deal with how Manson was not involved with this. In particular as Beausoleil claims he made a second phone call specifically to speak to Manson before killing Hinman.

Lastly, the Hinman inheritance, wasn't that Ella Jo Bailey who initially brought up this as a means of fund raising?